It isn't clear whether his advice here is just humor. This article goes on to explain that he uses semicolons in his own work, even in places where he didn't need to.
Possibly related? In both usages it is seen as elitist and unnecessary. I personally use them in JS because the code is aesthetically gross without them.
I know you’re kidding but golly does comma misuse stop me in my tracks every time. I can slide past almost any other spelling or style error without a second thought, or even crazy autocorrect errors in which, say, the word “mother” has been replaced with “toaster”, but this sort of comma misuse is like nails on a chalkboard to me. And it’s rampant.
"The semicolon is a profound public mystery; the only punctuation mark that regularly unites readers and writers in deep-seated repugnance."
That sentence should have used a colon, not a semi-colon, IIANM.
The digital world churns; Twitter is not an arena known for reflection. Semicolons, then, are snottily elitist and shadily indirect.
The elitist snottiness is in assuming people live their lives on Twitter and the like. They don't.
the semicolon has been usurped by ... the Dash
Well, _maybe_ some authors use more dashes than they used to (I actually doubt that, but never mind) - but a dash is not a substitute for semicolon. Their semantics are too different for that to be possible, IMHO. Take the first sentence in this paragraph: You can't replace the dash there with a semicolon, as that would mean splitting the "maybe" and "but" clauses into separate, not-directly-related clauses; you just can't do that.
indicating a pause
Not just a pause; a semicolon is also a semantic distancing. Two phrases separated by a comma are really an inseparable part of the same idea idea; if you separate them by a semicolon, they can each stand in their own right.
> Two phrases separated by a comma are really an inseparable part of the same idea idea; if you separate them by a semicolon, they can each stand in their own right.
A semicolon is a period and a comma combined. This makes me think that if the first part logically should end with a question mark or exclamation mark, we should have corresponding symbols for that.
> That sentence should have used a colon, not a semi-colon, IIANM.
I think you are mistaken. The two clauses are full sentences. They could have been separated by a full-stop/period, but the semi-colon makes them part of the same "thought".
Sorry, but “the only punctuation mark that regularly unites readers and writers in deep-seated repugnance” is not a full sentence. It should indeed be a colon.
When you need to write text for a wide audience, shorter sentences are usually preferable. Most business schools even teach briefness as an explicit target, as far as I know. That's quite different compared to the origins of writing, where the target were (usually) very literate people.
Briefness does not (and cannot) go against proper structuring - structure exists regardless of brevity. Comma, semicolon, period, new paragraph: the expressed thought has a structure and its sets of relative closeness are indicated through them.
Was going to comment this. Are there any great examples in all of literature where a period would not have been a good replacement fora semicolon?
As a side note, I am only a little offended by the idea that fiction writers should use semicolons to make their writing more literate or fancy. But I think simple writing is always better, even when you are trying to convey beauty. I believe great flowery literature is great in spite of the floweriness, not because of it.
Asking for a "great example" of punctuation use - any punctuation - is to miss the point, which is to smooth the reader's understanding of the text in the way that inflection and cadence are used in speech. As another commenter pointed out, well-used punctuation should be invisible. Only in its absence can it be properly appreciated.
Understanding language is not a strictly linear, one-word-after-another process, and these non-lexical clues all help us converge quickly on the intended meaning.
There have been several suggestions as to what might be just as good as a semicolon, but the period is a new one to me, and I strongly suspect that there are many cases where this substitution would interrupt a reader's flow. Given the importance, semantically, of the sentence, there are probably cases where this would corrupt the meaning.
I agree with most of what you said, but not that you shouldn't be able to find a good example. If the only good time for it is when it doesn't matter, that sounds like the worst and most pretentious parts of literature.
It is not clear to me how you could interpret my reply as being an admission that "the only good time for it is when it doesn't matter" - my claim is something quite different, that it makes a difference in a way that does not lead to great examples. Are there great examples, as you put it, of the use of the comma? If not, should we conclude that it doesn't matter and should be replaced with something else? A period, perhaps, as you say should replace the semicolon?
I will admit, however, that I doubt a misunderstanding of this magnitude could be fixed by punctuation.
Given the viewpoint expressed by the last sentence in my original reply, I have little doubt there are examples where replacing a semicolon with a period could alter the meaning of an expression, but I am just not motivated enough to go look for one.
If, as your final sentence suggests, you feel that semicolons are characteristic of "the worst and most pretentious parts of literature", then I have bad news about just how pretentious writing can get. Writing that badly misuses semicolons might be the work of a pretentious author, but it is mainly just bad writing.
Ultimately, however, I think the semicolon will disappear: if one's readership finds it strange and it interrupts their flow, then it is counter-productive. I do not, however, think this would mean it was a bad idea; its demise will be just a consequence of the ever-shifting norm of usage in language. Furthermore, the substitution of other punctuation for the semicolon, as noted in the article, suggests that it had a purpose that remains to be satisfied one way or another.
For a couple of decades now college professors have been death on passive voice sentences, which tends to create students and then writers who avoid long sentences for fear they aren't "punchy" enough.
And the sad thing is, they don’t even know what the passive voice is! See G. K. Pullum, Fear and Loathing of the English Passive [http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/passive_loathing.html]. Their unintentional hypocrisy is quite something, e.g.:
> … it makes little difference if you decide to look at prose written by the advisers on usage themselves. Consider the beginning of E. B. White's introduction to his revision of The Elements of Style (Strunk & White 2000). I underline the head verbs of the passive VPs … Six instances of transitive verbs appear here: took, called, required, called, known, and printed. Five of them are in the passive. That's over 83 percent.
A lot of that article feels like too much of a gotcha. There is a difference between "Alice died of a gunshot wound" and "Bob fatally shot Alice". The fact that neither one is passive voice according to the author's definition doesn't mean that people are wrong for being upset if Bob is left out of the headline. It really seems like missing the point to counter complaints that Bob isn't suitably blamed in a headline by pointing out that the grammar is fine!
But it also seems like missing the point for people to criticize that headline for a grammatical error (falsely!) when they really just want Bob to be named... which is exactly the point of that article, right?
They weren't criticizing the headline for a grammatical error (after all, passive voice isn't grammatically wrong). Rather they were using incorrect grammatical terminology to express their actual complaint: that the emphasis wasn't on Bob for committing murder!
In my native language classes I was always told by my teachers to try to make shorter sentences. If I do a second pass, I always delete words or split sentences into two.
I hope it's not something like "[some] people are confused by numbers, so avoid numbers". Of course (special contexts aside), those people should fix their problem with numbers, and whenever numbers are useful or duly for the purpose of communication, they should be there. The same for punctuation or any other function.
One should decide if one is using it because it’s the best way to communicate with one’s audience or if one is proud that one knows how to use a semicolon properly.
If your audience benefits from expressions that avoid semicolon, the point is in the expression, not in its nuts and bolts: you use an apt structure, which should anyway in general follow sensible rules. And you should not pollute the minds of your audience, so surely you want to avoid "reinforcing the use of something wrong by adopting it": you may, with ability, simplify a structure, but still crafting something eventually well and properly done. This rules out misplacing said "nuts and bolts".
Pride has nothing to do with it - to use logarithms for magnitudes is not "showing off".
I’ll double down on my original point. If, in 2021, you’re 100% sure you absolutely positively need to be using a semicolon in your writing, you need to reevaluate your position.
Why should 2021 be different than any other year. I cannot see a reason to avoid using the semicolon. It is part of proper expression - it's useful, available and innocent.
Also, it so happens that I wear a fedora. It's not an affectation, it's just a felt hat. My natural scalp insulation started to fall out a decade or so ago, so I started wearing beanies. But now I feel much more at home under a fedora - apart from anything else, the hat works as a sort of miniature umbrella.
I mean yes, this is exactly what I’m talking about. Use semi-colons if you want and wear a fedora if you want, but understand the image you’re putting out into the world if you do.
Whereas, how would you evaluate the image you would project, by not using semicolons (or anything that would fall into this matter of use, appropriateness and possible reactions) when appropriate, or by refusing to do it to follow the use of some not better defined writers, or for fear of the judgement of some very generically mentioned public?
Write with semicolons or wear a fedora and I can make a few (likely accurate) guesses about who you are. Either you’re OK with giving off those vibes or not.
Personally, I’m not. So I’d rather just not use semicolons.
Someone who uses instruments properly and competently?¹
You have chosen different vibes: you have not just avoided some, you have embraced others. "Conformist" has not, historically, been used as a compliment.
Within epistemology, if researchers had put "group adherence" before "truth adherence", humanity - very loosely speaking - would still be using epicycles, ignore bacteria, use for the subatomic newtonian equations (which would not exist, because of course "distant action is unthinkable") etc.
So, here is one profile you could guess: someone who knows that distributions are bell curves instead of slopes - the extreme is less frequent than the median -, so someone who knows that "common sense" expresses a wish, when replacing the proper expression "good sense". So, someone who tries to carry on one's work objectively irregardless (and often in spite) of spurious fads and trends.
(I.e. not "OK with giving off those vibes", I guess)
See, I don't much care what vibes I give off. If people don't like my "vibes", I find different people to associate with. I don't pair my fedora with a snappy costume; I've always been a slob as far as clothes are concerned.
In fact I was complimented only yesterday on my "ensemble", which consisted of a leather bomber jacket with a lumberjack shirt hanging out, a pair of baggy training pants, and a hat. My instinctive (and rather rude) response was that I don't wear "ensembles", that this was just random strips of fabric I had stapled to my body when I rolled out of bed.
I'm not Hemingway, although I do appreciate the value of short sentences for making prose clear and easy-to-understand. I'm not a punctuation nazi; I don't think less of people for not using the same style of punctuation and sentence-construction that I do.
I think your "likely accurate" guesses about who I am are probably wildly inaccurate, given that you've based them on a single 5-line post to a web forum. FWIW, I have no idea who you are, or what kind of person you are, except that you seem to be inclined to jump to conclusions based on scant evidence.
While some publications do add space on either side of an em-dash—including, apparently, the submitted website—I was always taught not to. It certainly isn't required.
It uses the semi-colon to join independent clauses instead of a conjunction, which is fine. It might otherwise have read, “The semicolon is a profound public mystery, and the only punctuation mark that…”. Nevertheless, it isn’t a great showcase for the semi-colon’s usefulness. The writer could have invented a more elegant example to begin the article; the one they chose is a prime example of a semi-colon that adds little to the sentence.
The second phrase is not an independent clause, which is the issue.
> the only punctuation mark that regularly unites readers and writers in deep-seated repugnance
There is not a subject and a verb; this is a fragment and does not stand alone. Prepending "it is" to the second clause would make this a proper sentence by making the second clause an independent clause instead of merely a noun modified by an adjectival prepositional phrase.
Edit: I nerdsniped myself and it might not be strictly accurate to call it a prepositional phrase; 'that' is technically a conjunction in this case used to link its own subordinate clause, but that subordinate clause still does not complete the clause fragment whose subject is
"[punctuation] mark." It's still just a modified noun.
What is the correct past tense of lead? I thought it was “led”, but I can’t remember having ever read any other form?
What often irks me, as a non-native speaker, is the wrong subjunctive (if that’s what it’s called). People say and write all the time “I wish you were there”, when they mean “I wish you had been there”. At least I’m pretty sure that’s how it’s supposed to be…
Present: "He leads me to believe in grammatical rigor."
Past: "She led me to that conclusion long ago."
Past, growing popular but historically incorrect: "She lead me to that conclusion long ago."
Noun: "I licked the sweet lead off the wall."
Also noun: "After six rounds of chess-boxing-sprinting, it was not clear to either of the participants who had the lead."
Also also popular but historically incorrect noun: "We have eighty thousand lead-free ornaments on this wall, each lit by an individually-addressable led."
"I wish you were here" -- in this location, now or in the past.
"I wish you were there" -- at another location, now or in the past.
"I wish you had been there" -- at another location, in the past.
"had been" means that the action is concluded. "were" is for both continuing and concluded actions, and more words are necessary to glark it from context.
"I wish you were here." is grammatically correct in English. And yes it is the "subjunctive mood". Its meaning is closer to "I wish for you to be here" than "I wish you had been here".
This random page I found on the internet has a pretty decent explanation of the subjunctive:
It is "led". I notice the web using "lead" for both the present and past forms a lot--presumably because it sneaks past spelling checkers and autocorrect. (There's also a correspondence to "read" (long e) where "read" (short e) is also the past tense. Yeah, welcome to English.)
And, I'm almost sorry for pointing it out if you haven't noticed it. Once you do notice it, you see it everywhere and it's a big, jarring speedbump when you read.
"Were" is the subjunctive. I think it comes to English from the German subjunctive form "wäre". It's not the same word as "were", as in "We were running".
The example you've chosen refers to an event in the past, so "were" seems to be ambiguous in that context, because it could be "you were there", prefixed by I wish - i.e. the writer isn't trying to use the subjunctive at all, which I think is nowadays OK.
"I wish you were here" is a clearer example. That is clearly present subjunctive. "I wish you had been here" would be referring to an event in the past - so that's some kind of past subjunctive.
Some would say that a focus on proper grammar, expansive incorporated linguistical repertoires, and western/anglo-centric style is not inclusive. And I would agree.
In line with your example, I have noticed "costed" used instead of "cost" increasingly often.
"costed" is proper when referring to the past action of determining the price for something to purchase. "Last week Sheila costed out the parts list, so it should be accurate."
"priced" is proper for both the past actions of determining the price of something to purchase or something to sell.
"Last week Sheila priced out the parts list, so it should be accurate."
"Last week Sheila priced everything on the shelves."
english is not esperanto. it happens to be the native language for a significant part of the world population, and they have no obligation to accept its bastardization for the sake of inclusivity.
in every non-western country with its own language, those "some" would get rightfully ridiculed.
What is this universal, pure English you've been speaking? I must have missed the tablets on which it was written?
Non jokingly: There is no "bastardization" of a natural language. It is spoken how it is spoken and insisting otherwise is missing the point of language (I suggest it is "communication"). There is no King of English to sit and dictate the rules except for the common languages spoken.
If you want to really grok the concept, take some time to figure out what a "language" actually is. I'll give you a hint: your first 5 definitions have obvious failings.
I don't agree that contemporary usage defines the language. We have a canon of English literature reaching back centuries, and people use phrases from e.g. Shakespeare without eveen noticing they're doing it. I think it would be a shame if learning contemporary usage should fail to equip you to read Shakespeare.
Descriptivism is all very well; but it doesn't seem to allow for any usage to be actually incorrect.
I am seeing a use of the instruments that seems quite confused.
The semicolon is part of the division of the expression of thought in supersets and subsets of structural affinity: comma, semicolon, period, new paragraph. (Which also means that the semicolon has a necessary role in general: whenever the structure is best defined also using that level of affinity.)
The dash, the colon and the brackets are instead related to the modality of relation: the colon to express dependency, the dash to provide detail, the brackets to insert a note parallel to the main flow.
(Note: there is also a sub-function of the semicolon to separate list items. I did not use it in the paragraph just above as I intended to exploit the "nuclear" aspect of comma-separated list items, but that is a rhetorical option and the semicolon would have been necessary for more complex items.)
Did you mean `full-stop' in your 2nd paragraph, or are you ascribing a double role to the colon and ignoring the full-stop?
According to Fowler (The King's English), there was a time when the difference between , ; : . was merely quantitative (which explains the name `semicolon').
Thank you! Now corrected. Informally: incredibly, one reads and re-reads, edits multiple times in a span of hours, and still leaves errors and imprecisions. Of course it was the period or "full-stop" - in reading, also as I had defined the colon differently in the next paragraph...
By the way, you made me note that 'full-stop' is British English and 'period' is American English. As some of us prefer to write in International English - "OED", or "British spelling with -ize graecisms" in international contexts, I have never considered if there is some solid orientation also about terminology - 'full-stop' vs. 'period', 'lift' vs. 'elevator'...
"UN English" generally follows British/Oxford usage, although there are a few exceptions: writing "Mr." with the full stop, "sulfur" rather than "sulphur", "1.30 pm" (not 1:30 pm or 13:30) etc.
I think it's a decent compromise. All the Zs make it look weird to British readers, and all the Us make it look weird to Americans.
I was in college only ten years ago, and my English professor’s key insight to punctuation is that it’s to define framing and tempo for your sentences.
That the sequence you listed is the pause count — similar to different empty spaces in music. Punctuation is just the negative space to frame your thoughts!
Colon isn't a type of pause; at least, I only ever use it to introduce lists. I don't use it for timing or tonality.
This discussion makes it painfully clear to me that I over-punctuate. I mean, I knew I leant more towards elaborate sentence-construction than is fashionable; I've never liked txt-speak, and my thumbs are too fat and flabby for operating miniature virtual keyboards.
I try to write literate emails. That is also unfashionable, apparently, but I think it's considerate to the reader to use the expressive power of the language. In fact emails now seem to mostly be an alternative channel for sending txts. I think this is because of mobile apps that present the same UI for txts and emails.
So I send a carefully-considered email, with paragraphs and all that, and I get back a reply of the form "Yes! <emoticon> <emoticon>".
On semi-colons, I use them to append a clause with sentence structure (roughly subject, main verb, object) to the main part of a sentence, while keeping the two clauses together as a single "thought".
It also is a type of vocal intention. Are you acquainted with John Cleese playing the "Hungarian gentleman with phrase book" in the Monty Python sketch? «I will not buy this record [mounting pause, then release] it is scratched». The first part is preliminary, incomplete, it requires the second, expressed as a release after the mounting premise: the sentence is pronounced as having a colon (I cannot check the exact sample right now - that is how I remember it).
You can imagine the difference if it were pronounced as a dash, as a more emotionally neutral interpretation of the sentence, not stressing the implications of "the record being scratched", could bring. With colon you make the first part an incomplete premise that depends on the second part to finally gain meaning or informational value or completeness, reaching to conclusions; with dash with the second part you provide the detail that enrich the content of the first part. As a vocal intention, the musicality of the syllables would change (e.g., in «it is scratched», high-high-low vs. low-low-high), and the pause would become more of a mid-air jump suspension. (Unfortunately I do not have other examples to provide on the spot).
There can be correspondence between natural vocal intentions and punctuation - as is understandable, since punctuation very probably mimics the communicational relations implied in the acting of speech, and both are a consequence of the organization of thought.
It sounds as if you are saying that /colon/ is a pause, because in your Cleese reference, he pronounces a /colon/. If that's what you meant, then are you not begging the question? You assume that his pause was a /colon/, and conclude that /colon/ means a pause.
No. I have precisely stated that «It [relation between sentences] also is a type of vocal intention». This was stated on the basis that if you listen to a normal, decent speaker, you can see that the musicality in language can follow semantics, precisely different relations of sentences including modalities. Different relations are implied in different rhythms and melodies. You sing colons, dashes etc. as you speak.
There is no assumption: it is an obstension. There is no conclusion: it remains an obstension. That I mentioned of Cleese's acting, is an example.
I fail to see how you could read that pseudo-logic in that post. Do not use that poor pattern as a universal key: it is not.
I use a colon to denote scale routinely, such as: in places I might have used other punctuation, but for the scale of the sentence in some other regard; or where there’s some typographical feature — such as bulleted lists.
I would say I see it for that kind of use semi-routinely in long form posts.
This is an excellent comment thank you. You put into words some of my unconscious inklings. Is there any reading you can recommend on the topic that isn’t a dry grammar manual — something akin to Strunk and White, or a good blog? If not I suppose you could write one :)
I’ve read some shelves in my life, and from a reader’s perspective a good read has never made me think about what punctuation the author used. This is an inside nonsense which only worries idling writers and critics.
I considered Frankenstein to be a good read. Compared to the stuff I read before, Shelley's frequent use of the semicolon did startle me. And taught me its proper usage.
>a good read has never made me think about what punctuation the author used
I can with certainty conclude that you have never ever read any Cormac McCarthy or Charles Dickens, and you should, if only to illustrate each extreme of the milieu which you've thus far ignored.
My goal was to read one book this year after reading none the previous couple years. My friend and I chose Blood Meridian >< and it has been a challenging foray back into the hobby/reading life that I am not sure I would choose again. Good book though for sure.
They also use square brackets and curly braces more often than writers. That's not as amusing, for some reason.
It does feel like the semicolon doesn't deserve a position on home row anymore. I would demote it for a different letter or even the question mark. Actually I might try this on my Ergodox.
Ah, the colon. To misquote Denis Leary, never use a punctuation symbol named after part of your ass. And then the semicolon. Half-assed by name, half-assed by nature.
Dash seems a poor substitute. A dash is closer to a period. Semicolons work well for when just using multiple commas would become ambiguous. Shorter sentences also solve that, but sometimes you want a run on sentence, sometimes you want to splice more context in at this very point. & sometimes you just want to drop a conjunction
Writing has no laws, only rules meant to be broken
English is also a descriptivist language, rather than prescriptivist. ie English has no spec, unlike French (tho you then have French as it is spoken & French as it is specified). As much as Oxford might want to reign it in, they are only cataloging what the collective spews
Using "&" in place of the word "and" does depart from common usage (though there's no "law") and does so in such an overt way that it appears pretentious.
259 comments
[ 9.9 ms ] story [ 5374 ms ] thread[1] https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/vonnegut...
It's easy to over-use semicolons, and you often see people who have just discovered them use them all over the place for no good reason.
I blame JavaScript developers. /s
I'm particularly bored tonight.
[0] https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20180723-the-commas-tha...
That sentence should have used a colon, not a semi-colon, IIANM.
The digital world churns; Twitter is not an arena known for reflection. Semicolons, then, are snottily elitist and shadily indirect.
The elitist snottiness is in assuming people live their lives on Twitter and the like. They don't.
the semicolon has been usurped by ... the Dash
Well, _maybe_ some authors use more dashes than they used to (I actually doubt that, but never mind) - but a dash is not a substitute for semicolon. Their semantics are too different for that to be possible, IMHO. Take the first sentence in this paragraph: You can't replace the dash there with a semicolon, as that would mean splitting the "maybe" and "but" clauses into separate, not-directly-related clauses; you just can't do that.
indicating a pause
Not just a pause; a semicolon is also a semantic distancing. Two phrases separated by a comma are really an inseparable part of the same idea idea; if you separate them by a semicolon, they can each stand in their own right.
A semicolon is a period and a comma combined. This makes me think that if the first part logically should end with a question mark or exclamation mark, we should have corresponding symbols for that.
I think you are mistaken. The two clauses are full sentences. They could have been separated by a full-stop/period, but the semi-colon makes them part of the same "thought".
As a side note, I am only a little offended by the idea that fiction writers should use semicolons to make their writing more literate or fancy. But I think simple writing is always better, even when you are trying to convey beauty. I believe great flowery literature is great in spite of the floweriness, not because of it.
Understanding language is not a strictly linear, one-word-after-another process, and these non-lexical clues all help us converge quickly on the intended meaning.
There have been several suggestions as to what might be just as good as a semicolon, but the period is a new one to me, and I strongly suspect that there are many cases where this substitution would interrupt a reader's flow. Given the importance, semantically, of the sentence, there are probably cases where this would corrupt the meaning.
I will admit, however, that I doubt a misunderstanding of this magnitude could be fixed by punctuation.
Given the viewpoint expressed by the last sentence in my original reply, I have little doubt there are examples where replacing a semicolon with a period could alter the meaning of an expression, but I am just not motivated enough to go look for one.
If, as your final sentence suggests, you feel that semicolons are characteristic of "the worst and most pretentious parts of literature", then I have bad news about just how pretentious writing can get. Writing that badly misuses semicolons might be the work of a pretentious author, but it is mainly just bad writing.
Ultimately, however, I think the semicolon will disappear: if one's readership finds it strange and it interrupts their flow, then it is counter-productive. I do not, however, think this would mean it was a bad idea; its demise will be just a consequence of the ever-shifting norm of usage in language. Furthermore, the substitution of other punctuation for the semicolon, as noted in the article, suggests that it had a purpose that remains to be satisfied one way or another.
> … it makes little difference if you decide to look at prose written by the advisers on usage themselves. Consider the beginning of E. B. White's introduction to his revision of The Elements of Style (Strunk & White 2000). I underline the head verbs of the passive VPs … Six instances of transitive verbs appear here: took, called, required, called, known, and printed. Five of them are in the passive. That's over 83 percent.
Anecdotally, I still use the semicolon when I write. Sometimes it just seems like the most natural way to bridge two thoughts.
Bonus points if it makes me look like a pompous loner going against society.
Reject modernity, embrace semicolons.
Consensus is a beautiful thing.
Why should one avoid using it.
What do you mean?
I hope it's not something like "[some] people are confused by numbers, so avoid numbers". Of course (special contexts aside), those people should fix their problem with numbers, and whenever numbers are useful or duly for the purpose of communication, they should be there. The same for punctuation or any other function.
Pride has nothing to do with it - to use logarithms for magnitudes is not "showing off".
I’ll double down on my original point. If, in 2021, you’re 100% sure you absolutely positively need to be using a semicolon in your writing, you need to reevaluate your position.
For the average person, using a semicolon is an affectation like wearing a fedora. Some people look good doing it but most don’t.
Also, it so happens that I wear a fedora. It's not an affectation, it's just a felt hat. My natural scalp insulation started to fall out a decade or so ago, so I started wearing beanies. But now I feel much more at home under a fedora - apart from anything else, the hat works as a sort of miniature umbrella.
Which kind of public are you courting?
Personally, I’m not. So I’d rather just not use semicolons.
Someone who uses instruments properly and competently?¹
You have chosen different vibes: you have not just avoided some, you have embraced others. "Conformist" has not, historically, been used as a compliment.
Within epistemology, if researchers had put "group adherence" before "truth adherence", humanity - very loosely speaking - would still be using epicycles, ignore bacteria, use for the subatomic newtonian equations (which would not exist, because of course "distant action is unthinkable") etc.
So, here is one profile you could guess: someone who knows that distributions are bell curves instead of slopes - the extreme is less frequent than the median -, so someone who knows that "common sense" expresses a wish, when replacing the proper expression "good sense". So, someone who tries to carry on one's work objectively irregardless (and often in spite) of spurious fads and trends.
--
¹Provided, of course, such is the case.
(I.e. not "OK with giving off those vibes", I guess)
See, I don't much care what vibes I give off. If people don't like my "vibes", I find different people to associate with. I don't pair my fedora with a snappy costume; I've always been a slob as far as clothes are concerned.
In fact I was complimented only yesterday on my "ensemble", which consisted of a leather bomber jacket with a lumberjack shirt hanging out, a pair of baggy training pants, and a hat. My instinctive (and rather rude) response was that I don't wear "ensembles", that this was just random strips of fabric I had stapled to my body when I rolled out of bed.
I'm not Hemingway, although I do appreciate the value of short sentences for making prose clear and easy-to-understand. I'm not a punctuation nazi; I don't think less of people for not using the same style of punctuation and sentence-construction that I do.
I think your "likely accurate" guesses about who I am are probably wildly inaccurate, given that you've based them on a single 5-line post to a web forum. FWIW, I have no idea who you are, or what kind of person you are, except that you seem to be inclined to jump to conclusions based on scant evidence.
Maybe, maybe not. But I could've predicted your entire response nearly word for word.
> the only punctuation mark that regularly unites readers and writers in deep-seated repugnance
There is not a subject and a verb; this is a fragment and does not stand alone. Prepending "it is" to the second clause would make this a proper sentence by making the second clause an independent clause instead of merely a noun modified by an adjectival prepositional phrase.
Edit: I nerdsniped myself and it might not be strictly accurate to call it a prepositional phrase; 'that' is technically a conjunction in this case used to link its own subordinate clause, but that subordinate clause still does not complete the clause fragment whose subject is "[punctuation] mark." It's still just a modified noun.
For example, when was the last time you saw someone on the web actually use the correct past tense of "lead (verb, transitive)"?
What often irks me, as a non-native speaker, is the wrong subjunctive (if that’s what it’s called). People say and write all the time “I wish you were there”, when they mean “I wish you had been there”. At least I’m pretty sure that’s how it’s supposed to be…
Past: "She led me to that conclusion long ago."
Past, growing popular but historically incorrect: "She lead me to that conclusion long ago."
Noun: "I licked the sweet lead off the wall."
Also noun: "After six rounds of chess-boxing-sprinting, it was not clear to either of the participants who had the lead."
Also also popular but historically incorrect noun: "We have eighty thousand lead-free ornaments on this wall, each lit by an individually-addressable led."
"I wish you were there" -- at another location, now or in the past.
"I wish you had been there" -- at another location, in the past.
"had been" means that the action is concluded. "were" is for both continuing and concluded actions, and more words are necessary to glark it from context.
This random page I found on the internet has a pretty decent explanation of the subjunctive:
https://www.learngrammar.net/a/examples-of-the-subjunctive-m...
It is "led". I notice the web using "lead" for both the present and past forms a lot--presumably because it sneaks past spelling checkers and autocorrect. (There's also a correspondence to "read" (long e) where "read" (short e) is also the past tense. Yeah, welcome to English.)
And, I'm almost sorry for pointing it out if you haven't noticed it. Once you do notice it, you see it everywhere and it's a big, jarring speedbump when you read.
The example you've chosen refers to an event in the past, so "were" seems to be ambiguous in that context, because it could be "you were there", prefixed by I wish - i.e. the writer isn't trying to use the subjunctive at all, which I think is nowadays OK.
"I wish you were here" is a clearer example. That is clearly present subjunctive. "I wish you had been here" would be referring to an event in the past - so that's some kind of past subjunctive.
I regret the death of the subjunctive.
In line with your example, I have noticed "costed" used instead of "cost" increasingly often.
"priced" is proper for both the past actions of determining the price of something to purchase or something to sell.
"Last week Sheila priced out the parts list, so it should be accurate."
"Last week Sheila priced everything on the shelves."
in every non-western country with its own language, those "some" would get rightfully ridiculed.
What is this universal, pure English you've been speaking? I must have missed the tablets on which it was written?
Non jokingly: There is no "bastardization" of a natural language. It is spoken how it is spoken and insisting otherwise is missing the point of language (I suggest it is "communication"). There is no King of English to sit and dictate the rules except for the common languages spoken.
If you want to really grok the concept, take some time to figure out what a "language" actually is. I'll give you a hint: your first 5 definitions have obvious failings.
Descriptivism is all very well; but it doesn't seem to allow for any usage to be actually incorrect.
8 days ago, 3 times.
"The doors are not always hidden - they clearly separate these two worlds, and may also led to very nice places that are just not public."
Presumably a typo.
The semicolon is part of the division of the expression of thought in supersets and subsets of structural affinity: comma, semicolon, period, new paragraph. (Which also means that the semicolon has a necessary role in general: whenever the structure is best defined also using that level of affinity.)
The dash, the colon and the brackets are instead related to the modality of relation: the colon to express dependency, the dash to provide detail, the brackets to insert a note parallel to the main flow.
(Note: there is also a sub-function of the semicolon to separate list items. I did not use it in the paragraph just above as I intended to exploit the "nuclear" aspect of comma-separated list items, but that is a rhetorical option and the semicolon would have been necessary for more complex items.)
According to Fowler (The King's English), there was a time when the difference between , ; : . was merely quantitative (which explains the name `semicolon').
By the way, you made me note that 'full-stop' is British English and 'period' is American English. As some of us prefer to write in International English - "OED", or "British spelling with -ize graecisms" in international contexts, I have never considered if there is some solid orientation also about terminology - 'full-stop' vs. 'period', 'lift' vs. 'elevator'...
I think it's a decent compromise. All the Zs make it look weird to British readers, and all the Us make it look weird to Americans.
https://www.un.org/dgacm/en/content/editorial-manual/punctua... ("full stop").
I was in college only ten years ago, and my English professor’s key insight to punctuation is that it’s to define framing and tempo for your sentences.
That the sequence you listed is the pause count — similar to different empty spaces in music. Punctuation is just the negative space to frame your thoughts!
And perhaps a bit of tonality.
This discussion makes it painfully clear to me that I over-punctuate. I mean, I knew I leant more towards elaborate sentence-construction than is fashionable; I've never liked txt-speak, and my thumbs are too fat and flabby for operating miniature virtual keyboards.
I try to write literate emails. That is also unfashionable, apparently, but I think it's considerate to the reader to use the expressive power of the language. In fact emails now seem to mostly be an alternative channel for sending txts. I think this is because of mobile apps that present the same UI for txts and emails.
So I send a carefully-considered email, with paragraphs and all that, and I get back a reply of the form "Yes! <emoticon> <emoticon>".
On semi-colons, I use them to append a clause with sentence structure (roughly subject, main verb, object) to the main part of a sentence, while keeping the two clauses together as a single "thought".
It also is a type of vocal intention. Are you acquainted with John Cleese playing the "Hungarian gentleman with phrase book" in the Monty Python sketch? «I will not buy this record [mounting pause, then release] it is scratched». The first part is preliminary, incomplete, it requires the second, expressed as a release after the mounting premise: the sentence is pronounced as having a colon (I cannot check the exact sample right now - that is how I remember it).
You can imagine the difference if it were pronounced as a dash, as a more emotionally neutral interpretation of the sentence, not stressing the implications of "the record being scratched", could bring. With colon you make the first part an incomplete premise that depends on the second part to finally gain meaning or informational value or completeness, reaching to conclusions; with dash with the second part you provide the detail that enrich the content of the first part. As a vocal intention, the musicality of the syllables would change (e.g., in «it is scratched», high-high-low vs. low-low-high), and the pause would become more of a mid-air jump suspension. (Unfortunately I do not have other examples to provide on the spot).
There can be correspondence between natural vocal intentions and punctuation - as is understandable, since punctuation very probably mimics the communicational relations implied in the acting of speech, and both are a consequence of the organization of thought.
It sounds as if you are saying that /colon/ is a pause, because in your Cleese reference, he pronounces a /colon/. If that's what you meant, then are you not begging the question? You assume that his pause was a /colon/, and conclude that /colon/ means a pause.
There is no assumption: it is an obstension. There is no conclusion: it remains an obstension. That I mentioned of Cleese's acting, is an example.
I fail to see how you could read that pseudo-logic in that post. Do not use that poor pattern as a universal key: it is not.
I would say I see it for that kind of use semi-routinely in long form posts.
I can with certainty conclude that you have never ever read any Cormac McCarthy or Charles Dickens, and you should, if only to illustrate each extreme of the milieu which you've thus far ignored.
It does feel like the semicolon doesn't deserve a position on home row anymore. I would demote it for a different letter or even the question mark. Actually I might try this on my Ergodox.
> Semicolons are hot
Dash seems a poor substitute. A dash is closer to a period. Semicolons work well for when just using multiple commas would become ambiguous. Shorter sentences also solve that, but sometimes you want a run on sentence, sometimes you want to splice more context in at this very point. & sometimes you just want to drop a conjunction
Unless you're a famous writer, isn't that against the law?
I thought you're supposed to start a sentence with a capital letter, or can anything follow a hard stop? E.g. is this kosher (?):
Microsoft copied Java. .net, they called it.
Final question; what if your name is kreeben with a lowercase 'k', is this kosher:
Grammar is hard. kreeben does not understand it.
?
Writing has no laws, only rules meant to be broken
English is also a descriptivist language, rather than prescriptivist. ie English has no spec, unlike French (tho you then have French as it is spoken & French as it is specified). As much as Oxford might want to reign it in, they are only cataloging what the collective spews
Examples of miniscule starts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/of_Montreal where the band's name is always "of Montreal"
Which means French has no spec, either, merely people trying to create a specification and failing.
You missed an excellent chance to say 'French as she is spoke'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_as_She_Is_Spoke
Using "&" in place of the word "and" does depart from common usage (though there's no "law") and does so in such an overt way that it appears pretentious.